Peter Leyssens wrote:
>An A5 (15x20cm) printout of a cheap 3mp camera that I had made recently
>showed far, far less grain than a Portra 800 print made by the same
>photography shop. It was very close to a Portra 160VC print. There was
>a little bit to be seen at the edges of objects, but it was less
>noticable from a normal viewing distance than the Portra 160VC grain.
>
>
I've made some very nice 8x10 (A4?) prints from a 2mp P&S, some even
cropped. Viewed at close distances, they still look pleasant, but are
obviously not highly detailed. At normal viewing distance, they are in
some ways nicer than scanned film. I think it's something to do with
color linearity, but I'm not sure. In any case, regular people tend to
pick them out as eye catching and remark on how much they like them. I
don't do that much anymore, as the higher rez digis I have now have the
same characteristics with better detail resolution.
>I was surprised as well.
>
>Unfortunately, that particular cheap 3mp camera (a Minolta) has an
>extreme shutter lag
>
The shutter and shot to shot lag of digicams has improved enormously in
newer models. It was my one real gripe with the S110. New ones are at
least as fast as AF film P&Ss were and seem to me to be faster. The F10
in any sort of half decent light is essentially instantaneous.
>and terrible colour balance
>
Again, color balance has improved in general, but it's still the
responsibility of the photographer to use the right settings. I've
kicked myself more than once for shooting a lot of shots at The
Cloisters in incandescent and mixed lighting with WB set to sunlight.
Hard to blame the camera there! My excuse is that I was new to the
camera, but how hard is it to realize that Auto, or custom when there is
time, for mixed light and Incandescent for incandescent is going to work
better. DOH!
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|